Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Southeast Asian Responses to U.S.-China Tech Competition: Hedging and Economy-Security Tradeoffs

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Chinese Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The economy-security nexus is at the core of U.S.-China technology competition. Both powers view economy and security as interconnected; both consider technology as the determining factor in turning this nexus to their advantage. Both aim to win the tech competition by seeking different forms of “decoupling” from each other—the United States proactively, China reactively. Simultaneously, however, both are pursuing an integrative policy towards other states—the United States with “likeminded” nations, China primarily with Global South countries. Southeast Asia, which is at the center of these competing courtships, faces both opportunities and risks. This article focuses on the policy choices of selected ASEAN states’ regarding 5G wireless technology as an instance of the responses of non-big powers to big-power tech competition. Its findings indicate that while the key ASEAN states have all responded by hedging, there are significant differences: Vietnam and to some extent Singapore have hedged more heavily (than Indonesia, Malaysia and other states) by excluding China from their 5G networks, but continued to engage China in other cooperation. Why do Southeast Asian states hedge differently vis-a-vis hi-tech competition? The article argues that the states’ responses are attributable to the politically-defined economy-security tradeoffs, as driven primarily by their respective ruling elites’ pathways of legitimation and other internal attributes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Personal communications with Thai economists, Bangkok, May 2023 and August 2023.

  2. Personal communications with Muhammad Habib Abiyan Dzakwan, Bali, December 8, 2023.

References

  1. Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2021. The twin chessboards of US-China rivalry: Impact on the geostrategic supply and demand in post-pandemic Asia. Asian Perspective 45 (1): 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1353/apr.2021.0020.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Medeiros, Evan S., ed. 2023. Cold rivals: The new era of U.S.-China strategic competition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hillman, Jonathan. 2021. The Digital Silk Road: China’s quest to wire the world and win the future. London: Profile Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Huang, Yanzhong. 2021. U.S.-China relations: A public health perspective. In Engaging China, ed. Anne F. Thurston, 229–259. Columbia: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/thur20128-009.

  5. Lee, Seungjoo. 2024. U.S.-China technology competition and the emergence of techno-economic statecraft in East Asia: High technology and economic-security nexus. Journal of Chinese Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-023-09878-8.

  6. Emmerson, Donald K, ed. 2020. The deer and the dragon: Southeast Asia and China in the 21st century. Shorenstein APARC.

  7. Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2021. Asymmetry and authority: Theorizing Southeast Asian responses to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Asian Perspective 45 (2): 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1353/apr.2021.0000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Khanal, Shaleen, and Hongzhou Zhang. 2023. Ten years of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: A bibliometric review. Journal of Chinese Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-023-09873-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Khanna, Parag. 2020. Pillar or pawn. Rest of World. https://restofworld.org/2020/pillar-or-pawn/. Accessed 16 Mar 2022.

  10. Mochinaga, Dai. 2021. The Digital Silk Road and China’s technology influence in Southeast Asia. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/digital-silk-road-and-chinas-technology-influence-southeast-asia. Accessed 16 Mar 2022.

  11. Martinus, Melinda. 2020. The intricacies of 5G development in Southeast Asia. ISEAS Perspective: 1–9. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/ISEAS_Perspective_2020_130.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2022.

  12. Li, Ran, and Kee Cheok Cheong. 2017. Huawei and ZTE in Malaysia: The localisation of Chinese transnational enterprises. Journal of Contemporary Asia 47 (5): 752–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2017.1346697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harwit, Eric. 2023. U.S.-China 5G competition, the economy-security nexus, and Asia. Journal of Chinese Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-023-09879-7.

  14. Noor, Elina. 2023. Southeast Asia and the China-US fight for tech supremacy. AsiaGlobal Online. https://www.asiaglobalonline.hku.hk/southeast-asia-and-china-us-fight-tech-supremacy. Accessed 3 Oct 2023.

  15. Liu, Yawei, and Michael Cerny, ed. 2023. Finding firmer ground: The role of high technology in U.S.-China Relations. The Carter Center.

  16. Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2022. Southeast Asian states and ASEAN: A center of courtships and cooperation. In International Relations of Asia, ed. David Shambaugh, 3rd ed., 189–227. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

  17. Wang, Liqin. 2023. China-Japan competition in infrastructure investment in Southeast Asia: A two-level analysis. Chinese Political Science Review 8 (4): 527–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-022-00231-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lampton, David M. Selina Ho, and Cheng-Chwee Kuik. 2020. Rivers of iron: Railroads and Chinese power in Southeast Asia, 84–116. Oakland: University of California Press.

  19. Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2021. Elite legitimation and the agency of the host country: Evidence from Laos, Malaysia, and Thailand’s BRI engagement. In Global perspectives on China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Asserting agency through regional connectivity, ed. Florian Schneider, 217–244. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Aiyara, Trin. 2019. The long and winding railway: Domestic politics and the realization of China-initiated high-speed railway projects in Thailand. Chinese Political Science Review 4 (3): 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-019-00124-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goldstein, Avery, and Edward D. Mansfield, eds. 2012. The nexus of economics, security, and international relations in East Asia. California: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804783347.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Goh, Evelyn. 2013. Making headway on the “economic-security nexus”: Contributions from Southeast Asia. The Asan Forum. https://theasanforum.org/making-headway-on-the-economic-security-nexus-contributions-from-southeast-asia/. Accessed 17 Mar 2022.

  23. Pempel, T.J., ed. 2013. The economy-security nexus in Northeast Asia. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203100080.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu, Feng, and Ruonan Liu. 2019. China, the United States, and order transition in East Asia: An economy-security nexus approach. The Pacific Review 32 (6): 972–995. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2018.1526205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sohn, Yul. 2019. South Korea under the United States-China rivalry: Dynamics of the economic-security nexus in trade policymaking. The Pacific Review 32 (6): 1019–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2019.1617770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Goh, Evelyn. 2020. The Asia–Pacific’s “age of uncertainty”: Great power competition, globalisation and the economic-security nexus. RSIS Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7007-7_2.

  27. Ravenhill, John. 2009. The economics–security nexus in the Asia-Pacific region. In Security politics in the Asia-Pacific, ed. William T. Tow, 188–208. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815126.011.

  28. Pempel, T.J. 2010. Soft balancing, hedging, and institutional darwinism: The economic-security nexus and East Asian regionalism. Journal of East Asian Studies 10 (2): 209–238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1598240800003441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee, Seungjoo. 2016. Institutional balancing and the politics of mega-FTAs in East Asia. Asian Survey 56 (6): 1055–1076. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2016.56.6.1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Koo, Min Gyo. 2013. The ASEAN+‘X’ framework and its implications for the economic-security nexus in East Asia. In Linking trade and security: Evolving institutions and strategies in Asia, Europe, and the United States, ed. Vinod K. Aggarwal and Kristi Govella, 89–109. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4765-8_5.

  31. Sohn, Yul, and T.J. Pempel, eds. 2019. Japan and Asia’s contested order. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0256-5.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Foot, Rosemary, and Amy King. 2019. Assessing the deterioration in China–U.S. relations: U.S. governmental perspectives on the economic-security nexus. China International Strategy Review 1: 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42533-019-00005-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Goh, Evelyn. 2019. Conceptualizing the economic-security-identity nexus in East Asia’s regional order. In Japan and Asia’s contested order, ed. Yul Sohn and T. J. Pempel, 17–37. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0256-5_2.

  34. Cheung, Tai Ming, and Bates Gill. 2013. Trade versus security: How countries balance technology transfers with China. Journal of East Asian Studies 13 (3): 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1598240800008298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Capie, David, Natasha Hamilton-Hart, and Jason Young. 2020. Economics-security nexus in the US-China trade conflict decoupling dilemmas. Policy Quarterly 16 (4): 27–35. https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v16i4.6627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yan, Karl. 2023. Navigating between China and Japan: Indonesia and economic hedging. The Pacific Review 36 (4): 755–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2021.2010795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tetlock, Philip E., Orie V. Kristel, S. Beth Elson, Melanie C. Green, and Jennifer S. Lerner. 2000. The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (5): 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.853.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Winter, Harold. 2013. Trade-offs: An introduction to economic reasoning and social issues, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Ackerman, Joshua M., and Douglas T. Kenrick. 2008. The costs of benefits: Help-refusals highlight key trade-offs of social life. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12 (2): 118–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308315700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Skinner, Wickham. 1969. Manufacturing-missing link in corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review 47 (3): 136–145.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Palmer, Glenn, and T. Clifton Morgan. 2006. A theory of foreign policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hicks, Norman L. 1979. Growth vs basic needs: Is there a trade-off? World Development 7 (11–12): 985–994. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(79)90066-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Moon, Bruce E., and William J. Dixon. 1992. Basic needs and growth-welfare trade-offs. International Studies Quarterly 36 (2): 191–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ravallion, Martin, Lyn Squire, and Michael Bruno. 1999. Equity and growth in developing countries: Old and new perspectives on the policy issues. Policy Research Working Papers. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-1563.

  45. Ostry, Jonathan David, Andrew Berg, and Charalambos G. Tsangarides. 2014. Redistribution, inequality, and growth. Washington, D.C: International Monetary Fund.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Gradus, Raymond, and Sjak Smulders. 1993. The trade-off between environmental care and long-term growth—Pollution in three prototype growth models. Journal of Economics 58 (1): 25–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01234800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Brock, William A., and M. Scott Taylor. 2005. Economic growth and the environment: A review of theory and empirics. In Handbook of Economic Growth, ed. Philippe Aghion and Steven N. Durlauf, 1749–1821. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01028-2.

  48. Rosa-Schleich, Julia, Jacqueline Loos, Oliver Mußhoff, and Teja Tscharntke. 2019. Ecological-economic trade-offs of diversified farming systems – A review. Ecological Economics 160: 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Berg, Andrew, and Jonathan David Ostry. 2011. Inequality and unsustainable growth: Two sides of the same coin? Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mankiw, N.G. 2001. The inexorable and mysterious tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. The Economic Journal 111 (471): 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. De Silveira, G., and N. Slack. 2001. Exploring the trade-off concept. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21 (7): 949–964. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110393432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Maney, Kevin. 2009. Trade-off: Why some things catch on, and others don’t. New York: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Busemeyer, Marius R., and Julian L. Garritzmann. 2017. Public opinion on policy and budgetary trade-offs in European welfare states: Evidence from a new comparative survey. Journal of European Public Policy 24 (6): 871–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1298658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Davis, D.W., and B.D. Silver. 2004. Civil liberties vs. security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science 48 (1): 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00054.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Solove, Daniel J. 2011. Nothing to hide: The false tradeoff between privacy and security. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wright, Matthew, and Irene Bloemraad. 2012. Is there a trade-off between multiculturalism and socio-political integration? Policy regimes and immigrant incorporation in comparative perspective. Perspectives on Politics 10 (1): 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711004919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sternberg, Claudia S. 2015. Political legitimacy between democracy and effectiveness: Trade-offs, interdependencies, and discursive constructions by the EU institutions. European Political Science Review 7 (4): 615–638. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773914000356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Dungan, James, Adam Waytz, and Liane Young. 2015. The psychology of whistleblowing. Current Opinion in Psychology 6: 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hartig, Terry, Camilla Kylin, and Gunn Johansson. 2007. The telework tradeoff: Stress mitigation vs. constrained restoration. Applied Psychology 56 (2): 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00252.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Luce, Mary Frances. 2005. Decision making as coping. Health Psychology 24 (4): 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Retief, Francois, Angus Morrison-Saunders, Davide Geneletti, and Jenny Pope. 2013. Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision-making in environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31 (1): 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.768007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tetlock, Philip E. 2000. Coping with trade-offs: Psychological constraints and political implications. In Elements of reason, ed. Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin, 239–263. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805813.011.

  63. McGraw, A. Peter., and Philip E. Tetlock. 2005. Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the acceptability of exchanges. Journal of Consumer Psychology 15 (1): 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Barnett, Michael N., and Jack S. Levy. 1991. Domestic sources of alliances and alignments: The case of Egypt, 1962–73. International Organization 45 (3): 369–395. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300033142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Morrow, James D. 1993. Arms versus allies: Trade-offs in the search for security. International Organization 47 (2): 207–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sorokin, Gerald L. 1994. Arms, alliances, and security tradeoffs in enduring rivalries. International Studies Quarterly 38 (3): 421. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Yarhi-Milo, Keren, Alexander Lanoszka, and Zack Cooper. 2016. To arm or to ally? The patron’s dilemma and the strategic logic of arms transfers and alliances. International Security 41 (2): 90–139. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Spaniel, William, and Iris Malone. 2019. The uncertainty trade-off: Reexamining opportunity costs and war. International Studies Quarterly 63 (4): 1025–1034. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Knorr, Klaus. 1970. Military power and potential. Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  71. Heron, Tony. 2011. Asymmetric bargaining and development trade-offs in the CARIFORUM-European Union economic partnership agreement. Review of International Political Economy 18 (3): 328–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2010.481916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Krebs, Ronald R., and Aaron Rapport. 2012. International Relations and the psychology of time horizons. International Studies Quarterly 56 (3): 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2012.00726.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Edelstein, David M. 2017. Over the horizon: Time, uncertainty, and the rise of Great Powers. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Carr, David. 2018. Reflections on temporal perspective: The use and abuse of hindsight. History and Theory 57 (4): 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/hith.12086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2008. The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia 30 (2): 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs30-2a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Lim, Darren J., and Zack Cooper. 2015. Reassessing hedging: The logic of alignment in East Asia. Security Studies 24 (4): 696–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2015.1103130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Haacke, Jürgen. 2019. The concept of hedging and its application to Southeast Asia: A critique and a proposal for a modified conceptual and methodological framework. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 19 (3): 375–417. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcz010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2016. How do weaker states hedge? Unpacking ASEAN states’ alignment behavior towards China. Journal of Contemporary China 25 (100): 500–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2015.1132714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2022. Shades of grey: Riskification and hedging in the Indo-Pacific. The Pacific Review 36 (6): 1181–1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2022.2110608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Knight, Frank H. 1921. Risk, uncertainty, and profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Snyder, Glenn H. 1984. The security dilemma in alliance politics. World Politics 36 (4): 461–495. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Bernstein, Peter L. 1996. Against the gods: The remarkable story of risk. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Heng, Yee-Kuang. 2006. War as risk management. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203970072.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  85. Cha, Victor. 2000. Abandonment, entrapment, and neoclassical realism in Asia. International Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 261–291.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  86. Heng, Yee-Kuang. 2022. Japan in the Gulf: Hedging between Washington and Tehran? The International Spectator 57 (4): 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2022.2113659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Kuik, Cheng-Chwee, and Chen-Dong Tso. 2022. Hedging in non-traditional security: The case of Vietnam’s disaster response cooperation. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 15 (4): 422–442. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poac017.

  88. Clapton, William. 2011. Risk in international relations. International Relations 25 (3): 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117811415480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Corry, O. 2012. Securitisation and “riskification”: Second-order security and the politics of climate change. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40 (2): 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811419444.

  90. Haacke, Jürgen, and John D. Ciorciari. 2022. Hedging as risk management: Insights from works on alignment, riskification, and strategy. 124. IPC Working Paper Series.

  91. Beetham, David. 1991. The legitimation of power. London: Red Globe Press London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21599-7.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  92. Alagappa, Muthiah, ed. 1995. Political legitimacy in Southeast Asia: The quest for moral authority. California: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Berman, Noah, Lindsay Maizland, and Andrew Chatzky. 2023. Is China’s Huawei a threat to U.S. national security? Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-huawei-threat-us-national-security. Accessed 3 Oct 2023.

  94. Bartz, Diane, and Alexandra Alper. 2022. U.S. bans new Huawei, ZTE equipment sales, citing national security risk. Reuters, December 1. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-fcc-bans-equipment-sales-imports-zte-huawei-over-national-security-risk-2022-11-25/. Accessed 1 Jun 2023.

  95. Le Thu, Huong. 2019. A collision of cybersecurity and geopolitics: Why Southeast Asia is wary of a Huawei ban. Global Asia 14:40–46.

  96. Onishi, Tomoya. 2019. Vietnam’s Viettel shuns Huawei 5G tech over cybersecurity. Nikkei Asia, September 6. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Huawei-crackdown/Vietnam-s-Viettel-shuns-Huawei-5G-tech-over-cybersecurity#. Accessed 1 Jun 2023.

  97. Tham, Irene. 2020. Singapore’s 5G network operators finalise vendors. The Straits Times, June 25. https://www.straitstimes.com/tech/singapores-5g-network-operators-finalise-vendors. Accessed 1 Jun 2023.

  98. Anuar, Amalina. 2020. 5G in Singapore: Is the tide turning against Huawei? East Asia Forum. https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2020/08/11/5g-in-singapore-is-the-tide-turning-against-huawei/. Accessed 8 Aug 2022.

  99. AFP. 2019. Mahathir says Malaysia will use Huawei “as much as possible,” May 30. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/05/492706/mahathir-says-malaysia-will-use-huawei-much-possible. Accessed 1 Jun 2023.

  100. Priyandita, Gatra, Dirk van der Kley, and Benjamin Herscovitch. 2022. Localization and China’s tech success in Indonesia. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Reuters. 2019. Indonesia cannot “be paranoid” about curbing Huawei as telcos sign deals: Minister, February 27. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1QG1C7/. Accessed 30 Oct 2022.

  102. Hirawan, Fajar B. Raymond Atje, Rania Noor Teguh, and Veronika S. Saraswati. Digital Silk Road and inclusive development in Indonesia. Jakarta: Center for Strategic and International Studies.

  103. Jibiki, Koya, and Takashi Kawakami. 2020. Huawei’s 5G deal with Indonesia spearheads Southeast Asia push. Nikkei Asia, December 2. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Huawei-crackdown/Huawei-s-5G-deal-with-Indonesia-spearheads-Southeast-Asia-push. Accessed 30 Oct 2022.

  104. Rakhmat, Muhammad Zulfikar, and Yeta Purnama. 2021. For Indonesia, Chinese 5G cooperation brings promise and peril. The Diplomat, January 20. https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/for-indonesia-chinese-5g-cooperation-brings-promise-and-peril/. Accessed 30 Oct 2022.

  105. Herscovitch, Benjamin, Dirk van der Kley, and Gatra Priyandita. 2022. Why Indonesia has embraced Huawei. Foreign Policy, July 28. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/28/indonesia-china-huawei-tech-cybersecurity/. Accessed 1 Jun 2023.

  106. Reuters. 2019. Thailand launches Huawei 5G test bed, even as US urges allies to bar Chinese gear, February 8. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1PX0D0/. Accessed 1 Jun 2023.

  107. Choi, Yongrok, and Do. Mai. 2018. The sustainable role of the E-Trust in the B2C e-commerce of Vietnam. Sustainability 10 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Rufinaldo, Rhany Chairunissa. 2020. Alibaba launches initiatives to support Vietnamese SMEs. Anadolu Agency, September 14. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/alibaba-launches-initiatives-to-support-vietnamese-smes/1972840. Accessed 30 Oct 2022.

  109. Abdul Rahman, Muhammad Faizal. 2020. Singapore decides on 5G networks: Is Huawei banned? The Diplomat, July 2. https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/singapore-decides-on-5g-networks-is-huawei-banned/. Accessed 1 Jun 2023.

  110. Jayakumar, Shashi, and Manoj Harjani. 2020. Between byte and bark: Singapore, US & Chinese tech. RSIS Commentary. https://dr.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/10356/144813/2/CO20180.pdf. Accessed 8 August 2022.

  111. Suruga, Tsubasa, and Akito Tanaka. 2023. Southeast Asia’s digital battle: Chinese and U.S. big tech face off over $1tn market. Nikkei Asia, November 15. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/Southeast-Asia-s-digital-battle-Chinese-and-U.S.-Big-Tech-face-off-over-1tn-market. Accessed 12 Jan 2024.

  112. Venzon, Cliff. 2020. Top Philippine telco to launch 5G service with Huawei and Ericsson. Nikkei Asia, July 29. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Telecommunication/Top-Philippine-telco-to-launch-5G-service-with-Huawei-and-Ericsson. Accessed 2 Jun 2023.

  113. Reuters. 2023. EU, US warn Malaysia of security risk in Huawei’s bid for 5G role, Financial Times reports, May 2. https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-us-warn-malaysia-national-security-risk-huaweis-bid-5g-role-ft-2023-05-02/. Accessed 3 Oct 2023.

  114. Reuters. 2023. Malaysia’s switch to dual 5G network can allow participation of China’s Huawei, Prime Minister says, September 27. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/malaysias-switch-dual-5g-network-can-allow-participation-chinas-huawei-pm-2023-09-27/. Accessed 3 Oct 2023.

  115. Khong, Yuen Foong. 2004. Coping with strategic uncertainty: The role of institutions and soft balancing in Southeast Asia’s post-cold war strategy. In Rethinking security in East Asia: Identity, power, and efficiency, ed. J. J. Suh, Peter J. Katzenstein, and Allen Carlson, 172–208. California: Stanford University Press.

  116. Devonshire-Ellis, Chris. 2022. Hong Kong and Singapore to provide “bankability, responsibility, and interconnectedness” throughout the Belt & Road Initiative. Silk Road Briefing. September 1. https://www.silkroadbriefing.com/news/2022/09/01/hong-kong-and-singapore-to-provide-bankability-responsibility-and-interconnectedness-throughout-the-belt-road-initiative/. Accessed 3 Oct 2023.

  117. Ba, Alice D. 2019. China’s “Belt and Road” in Southeast Asia: Constructing the strategic narrative in Singapore. Asian Perspective 43 (2): 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1353/apr.2019.0010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Chan, Irene. 2021. Singapore’s forward engagement with China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Coping with asymmetry, consolidating authority. Asian Perspective 45 (4): 709–733. https://doi.org/10.1353/apr.2021.0039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Onishi, Tomoya. 2020. Vietnam carrier develops native 5G tech to lock out Huawei. Nikkei Asia, January 25. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Telecommunication/Vietnam-carrier-develops-native-5G-tech-to-lock-out-Huawei. Accessed 2 Jun 2023.

  120. Bernama. 2023. PM Anwar: Transition to 5G network reduces financial implications for govt, May 23. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2023/05/23/pm-anwar-transition-to-5g-network-reduces-financial-implications-for-govt/70562. Accessed 2 Jun 2023.

  121. Carrozza, Ilaria, and Giacomo Bruni. 2023. China’s Digital Silk Road and Malaysia’s technological neutrality. The Diplomat, August 22. https://thediplomat.com/2023/08/chinas-digital-silk-road-and-malaysias-technological-neutrality/. Accessed 3 Oct 2023.

  122. Leifer, Michael. 2000. Singapore’s foreign policy: Coping with vulnerability. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Acharya, Amitav. 2008. Singapore’s foreign policy: The search for regional order. Hackensack: Istitute of Policy Studies/World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Kausikan, Bilahari. 2023. Singapore is still not an island: More views on Singapore foreign policy. Singapore: Straits Times Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Seungjoo Lee, Yongshin Kim, Ina Choi Yeon, Elina Noor, Ong Kian Ming, Farlina Said, Gatra Priyandita, Muhammad Habib Abiyan Dzakwan, Yujia He, Fong Chin Wei, Abdul Razak Ahmad, and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. He also thanks Zikri Rosli and Fikry A. Rahman for superb research assistance. All shortcomings are the author’s own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor in International Relations and Head of Centre for Asian Studies, Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS), National University of Malaysia (UKM), 43600, Bangi, Malaysia

    Cheng-Chwee Kuik

  2. Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute, Johns Hopkins SAIS, Washington, DC, 20001, USA

    Cheng-Chwee Kuik

Authors
  1. Cheng-Chwee Kuik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheng-Chwee Kuik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuik, CC. Southeast Asian Responses to U.S.-China Tech Competition: Hedging and Economy-Security Tradeoffs. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-024-09882-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-024-09882-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation